The Gwalior bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a case related to labor laws, set aside an order of the Labor Court that had ordered reinstatement of a worker with 50% of the arrears of wages, after observing that the dismissal of the worker on the part of the organization in question had already been made. following due process of law.

While doing so, the court observed that the petitioner, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (Pichhore), had followed the mandate of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, which enumerates the various conditions precedent for dismissal of workers, which dismisses the respondent worker .

A single court of Justice Anand Pathak in their order observed, “Taken together, it appears that compliance with Section 25F of the (Labor Disputes) The law was passed and the above vide award of the Labor Court dated 26-07-2010 gave liberty to the petitioners for dismissal and, therefore, the petitioners dismissed the worker following due process of law. Otherwise, the employee was working in a private school (from 1994-95) during that period and after almost 15 years he woke up from his slumber and started the process in the year 2009. Therefore, he suffers inordinate delays and delays without any explanation.“.

Regarding the language of Section 25F, the top court said that there are two possibilities in case of reduction and both are distinguished by incorporating the term “OR”.

Said, “Section 25F(a) of the Act contemplates two contingencies. One is that the employee must receive one month’s written notice stating the reason for dismissal and then the employee will be dismissed after the one-month notice period has elapsed. Another contingency is that if the worker has been paid wages during the notice period in lieu of notice, then they may also be dismissed. Both contingencies are distinguished by incorporating the word ‘O’.”

The court stated that if salaries are notified for a period of one month and retrenchment compensation is also provided, there is no need to notify the government under Section 25F(c).

“In other words, if the employer pays one month’s salary, he can dispense with sending one month’s written notice. Since waiver of notice is at the discretion of the employer and if he pays wages during the notice period and under Section 25F(b) of the Act, if he pays retrenchment compensation also at the time of retrenchment, then the requirement of notification to the appropriate government under section 25F(c) of the Act would not exist”, he stressed.

The court also observed that it would be contrary to the legislative intent for the word “O” to be omitted during interpretation. It said:

“Once the employer decides to pay one month’s salary and compensation under Section 25F(a) and (c) of the Act, the notification requirement under Section 25F(c) of the Act does not apply. Any contrary interpretation would implicitly delete or omit the word “O” from the statute book as contained in Section 25F(a) of the Act. This would be contrary to the legislative intent.“

The court was hearing the Samiti’s plea against a labor court order reversing the Samiti’s dismissal of the respondent worker. The respondent Mukesh Kumar Bhatt was dismissed in 1994 by the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, following which he initiated conciliation proceedings in 2009, 15 years after his dismissal. When the process failed, he filed a lawsuit before the labor court. The Labor Court in 2018 ruled in favor of the defendant and ordered his reinstatement with partial back wages. The employment tribunal found that the employer did not fully comply with the dismissal procedural requirements set out in Section 25F, in respect of notice and compensation.

The High Court questioned the defendant’s delay in taking legal action without any explanation and ruled in favor of the employer that due process was followed.

“On the whole, it appears that Section 25F of the Act was complied with and the Labor Court earlier vide award dated 26-07-2010 gave liberty to the petitioners for dismissal and, therefore, the petitioners dismissed the workman following due process. legal. Even the employee was working in a private school (from 1994-95) during that period and after almost 15 years he woke up from his slumber and started the process in the year 2009. Therefore, he suffers inordinate delays and delays without any explanation “, said. .

Admitting the petition, the high court set aside the order of the labor court.

Case Title: Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Pichhore & Ors. vs. Mukesh Kumar Bhatt

Case No: MISC. PETITION NO. 2923 of 2018

Click here to read/download the order